Re: Circular motion in SR

On Mar 25, 12:20 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 11:42�am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 24, 1:09�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

�If time is measured according to
transitions of cesium isotope molecules, then local physical processes
remain the same. � �It seems to me that you have to decide which you
are going to want to do.

Exactly. The decision has been made by consensus, as all standards are
done.

Oh, I didn't know it was by concensus.  You mean the way people once
thought the sun revolved around the earth.  Well, if it is by
concensus, then we have to abide by it.

A standard is arrived at differently than a physical law, you'll note.
Or perhaps you didn't note.

 Still, a few questions tend
to come to mind.  Your definition of time is an arbitrary value of
transitions of a cesium isotope molecule at specific conditions of
altitude, temperature, and pressure.  Change the altitude,
temperature, or pressure, and the cesium isotope molecule changes its
rate of transitions anyway.

I don't know where you got that idea.

 So with regard to these experiments run
by scientists, do they adjust their results according to the altitude,
temperature, and pressure that exist where the experiment is run?  

No, nor do they have to. All of this information is openly available
on the web, because the standards organization is a public group.
Please refrain from guessing and do some homework instead.

To
be honest, the more I think about scientists, the more I am
disinclined to believe tham.

Then don't try to be one, by posting on a scientific newsgroup with
your notions of scientific ideas.




I believe that there
may be other factors which also affect local physical processes. �What
I cannot understand is the position of scientists. �Scientific time is
the only measurement of time allowed. �OK, so what about your twin
theory? �How do they ever get back together according to scientific
time?
If they do, then obviously, there is some measurement of time that
includes the separation of the twins and their reuniting, which could
be calculated in either frame of reference.

No, sir. There is only frame-dependent time. There is no single time
measurement that both both twins would agree on. (You also mention
"either frame of reference" as though there were two. There are not
two. There are at least three.

Right. �If you can't answer something, try to make it more
complicated. �Really there are at least 7,238. �You say there is only
frame-dependent time, but anyone can determine for themselves that the
same event can be observed from two different frames of reference and
used to measure time in both frames of reference, just as the Galilean
transformation equations show.

OK, so do the Lorentz transformations. The problem is that the
Galilean transformations predict that the time elapsed will be the
same for all frames. The Lorentz transformations say that the time
elapsed will be different for all frames. The Lorentz transformations
agree with measurement and the Galilean ones don't, with the exception
being low-speed cases where the measurement sensitivity isn't high
enough to detect the incorrectness of the Galilean ones.

Well, n' in my equations as calculated from Galilean transformation
equation distances shows that for every frame of reference, there will
be a different rate of transitions of cesium isotope molecules. �So
the elapsed time as measured by cesium clocks in all frames will be
different.

Well, interestingly enough, by your method, the physical phenomenon
will take the same number of oscillations of the radiation from the
transition of the cesium isotope, but it will take a different number
of seconds, because for you the number of seconds per oscillations of
the radiation from the transition of the cesium isotope has to depend
on the speed of the reference frame compared to the sun.

No, not speed, velocity.  And it does not have to be the sun.  I just
used the sun as an example of a common measurement of time.

My comment stands, regardless of which distant standard is used.

 t'=t
means that S is a preferred frame of reference because S' is moving
relative to S.  But if you measure the speed of light in S' with a
clock in S', the speed of light is c because a photon is traveling at
c in S' as measured by a clock in S'.  As measured by t'=t, it would
not be traveling at c.

But it's not even as clean as that, because a laboratory that is
*accelerating* will have its speed relative to the sun changing
continually, and so by your prescription, the number of seconds per
cesium isotope transition radiation oscillation will also change
continually, and you'd have to track that change continually to even
measure how many seconds a chemical reaction takes or how long it
takes for a sample of americium to decay to half-activity or how long
it takes for hair to turn grey.

Well, no.  You just use a clock in the laboratory

Whose rate is *also* different compared to the rotation of the sun.

to do that because
scientists say it has been determined by experiment that light travels
at a rate of c relative to a clock in the laboratory.

That's correct. But the rate of the clock is different than that of
the rotation of the sun, depending on the velocity of that clock
relative to the sun.

We just use the equation t'=t to keep distances straight.  A distance
in S' is the same as a distance in S.
We can calculate the time of a clock in the laboratory from the
information in the Galilean transformation equations.

Why calculate it when you have a local clock with which to *measure*
it? If you *calculate* it using the Galilean transforms, you find the
rate of the local clock doesn't agree, the rate of oscillations of the
transition of cesium isotopes doesn't agree, the rate of radioactive
decay doesn't agree, the rate of bacterial growth doesn't agree, the
rate of hair going gray doesn't agree. If you use the local clock,
these disagreements all disappear. The only thing that is different is
that the local clock doesn't agree with the sun's rotations when it
has a velocity relative to the sun.


�The Lorentz equations agree with my equations to several
decimal places until very high velocities close to the speed of light
are reached, whereas, the Galilean transformation equations using
absolute time only agree to a couple of decimal places at 30 miles per
second, the velocity of the planet Mercury.

�So, as the Galilean
transformation equations show, there is not a different number of
separatings and reunitings in one frame of reference as compared to
the other.

OK

And the twin does not leave and return in one frame of
reference and then wait until he finishes returning in the other.

OK

If
time is measured by separatings and reunitings in each frame of
reference,

But it's not.

OK, so you refuse to consider the separating and reuniting of the
twins. �That does not mean it does not happen.

�It's measured according to the number of seconds

elapsed, and the number of seconds elapsed is determined by a standard
second that is defined in terms of local physical standard, and
against which it is verified that all physical processes behave the
same in every inertial reference frame. (That is, trees grow in the
same way, thorium samples decay in the same way, bacteria multiply at
the same rate, hair grays at the same rate, etc.) And by those
standards, the interval of time between the separating and reuniting
of the twins is *different* between the two twins.

Well, if we are not allowed to count time any other way, I guess a lot
of people are going to be criminals by your standard. �There are still
people who count days by the rising and setting of the sun.

Which is of course a problem for space shuttle astronauts who see
sunrises every 90 minutes, or for that matter intercontinental air
travelers. You do what you want and what works for welding. However,
to use it as a universal standard leaves something to be desired.

Well, it could still be used as a standard.

Sure it could. Doesn't seem particularly useful though.

Well, it does to me if I do not have to imagine a distance contraction
the way scientists require.

Why is that a problem?


�The people traveling in
space shuttles and airplanes would have to do more mathematics than
people on the ground, which might seem unfair to them.

then t'=t, just as the Galilean transformation equations
show. �The difference in clock rates will not affect how many times
the twin leaves and returns. �But you would have to decide which clock
has the more meaningful time in describing what took place.

No, you don't. You don't have to say, "Well, we have to choose one to
be more correct and the other less correct." Likewise, when I tell you
that your speed right now is either zero or 850 mph, depending on
whether you are looking at a frame tied to the earth or one that isn't
rotating with the earth, there is no need to say one is more "right"
than the other. Your speed is simply a frame-dependent quantity, as is
your kinetic energy, as is your momentum, and is a whole host of other
completely useful and completely frame-dependent physical quantities.

I did not say one was more correct than the other, I said one was more
meaningful than the other. �If you want to measure everything by
transitions of a cesium atom, it seems to me that you are free to do
it. �Just don't try to tell me that you are more intelligent than
everyone else because that is what you decided to do.

It is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of what provides
the broadest consistent applicability. That is the purpose of
measurement standards and physical theory.

Well, OK, but the problem you seem to have is a distance
contraction. �

Why is that a problem?

Well, for instance, the difference in the radius of orbit as observed
from Mercury.  You scientists say you want the laws of physics to be
the same in all frames of reference, and you sacrifice the laws of
mathematics to do it.

There is no law of mathematics that says that it must be the same.
That is only true in Euclidean (flat) 3D geometry with an independent
time coordinate. However, the laws of mathematics say that a
Riemannian (curved) 4D spacetime geometry says that the radius will be
frame-dependent. So then, since the laws of mathematics support both,
depending on which geometry is invoked, the only question remaining is
which geometry happens to be the one that is active in this universe.
That is tested by experiment.

Now, you may *want* Euclidean mathematics to be the one that applies,
because that's the one you're used to, and you may *want* to not have
to consider other mathematical geometries, but that isn't your option.

 I would rather have the laws of mathematics
stay the same.  However, reality may be on your side.  If Christ fed
the multitude with three loaves of bread and two fish, or whatever,
what does that do to mathematics?  Perhaps scientists are going to
prove that religion is true.

Actually, they don't have to *prove* anything true. All they have to
do is put up different models and see where they differ, and design
experiments to inquire of nature which one is more correct.


That may not be too much of a difficulty for anything
you are measuring on earth, but my belief is that it really gives you
some wrong results when considering astronomical distances.

No evidence of anything wrong. Everything works. It's wrong if it
gives wrong predictions of what you should see. It doesn't. I don't
see what's wrong with it.

Well, I connot fathom a universe like the one scientists are
describing.

And why do you think the universe should be intuitively easy?

 I think they are wrong about a lot of things with regard
to astronomy.  What I see is a conformity to European standards,
regardless of evidence.

European standards?


�Just my
opinion. �I get more and more sceptical about what scientists say
every time they come up with a new idea. �The latest ideas about what
will happen to the universe that I saw published seemed totally
idiotic to me.

Well, that's your perogative, of course. But then again, the point is
not to convince you of the sense of it.

Well, as I say, I am very sceptical.  I do not regard scientists as
being very honest.

That's your perogative. I don't know why you would then join a
discussion group about science to try to participate in science if you
think that it is a dishonest exercise.

I'm not overly trusting of welders, by the way. Too many containment
vessels and fuel rods at nuclear power plants have had bad welds
covered up by contractors.


If you want to opt for something with less broad, consistent
applicability, and you like it because you came up with it, then by
all means do so. It will be no slight on your intelligence to do so.

Well, I just take scientific explanation of time for what I believe it
is. � It may be useful to scientists, but it is not totally accurate,

Sure it is. No evidence it isn't correct.

Except for that distance contraction.

No, sir. There's no evidence that distance contraction is incorrect.


and certainly is not a law that we all have to obey or else be
punished.

Punished? Who says that there's a punishment involved if you don't
subscribe?
It's simple, really. Scientists use standards that work most reliably
and reproducibly. They use deduced natural laws that seem to have the
broadest applicability with the most precision and which seem to have
the highest success rate of predicting measurable phenomena.
If you don't want to use those laws or those standards, and the ones
you would rather use work just fine for you, then go right ahead.
There are lots to choose from and you can make up your own. You can
choose to do so just because you don't trust scientists, if you like.
No harm in that.
If you want to argue that others should adopt the same standards and
laws that you use, THEN you have a bit more to demonstrate.

Well, I have never seen any possibility that scientists would abandon
anything they are doing at the present time.  

But they do. All the time. The literature is littered with case after
case of dead ends and abandoned theories. The popular literature that
you pick up off the coffee table doesn't spend much time on that --
much to the frustration of scientists, mind you -- as they would
rather focus on the gains than on the losses.

You obviously have not had close enough contact with science to get a
feel for how it works.

They are getting too
much money for research using their present interpretation to ever
change.

How much money do you think scientists get? What do you think their
compensation is per hour? (I'd compare that with a welder's union rate
any day.)

 It is like telling a Republican or Democrat that political
parties are bad government and that the people should be allowed to
govern themselves without being subject to party corruption.  You
might as well tell an Englishman that the Queen of England is not
giving England good enough government.  I do not foresee scientists
doing anything except continuing on in their promotion of Einstein's
theory because it gives them something that most people cannot
understand which they can use to gain power.

What power could *possibly* come from promoting a theory that is
wrong?


�You say that what I believe is too difficult for scientists
to use.

No, not too difficult. Just not as useful.

Well, I would agree that it would not be as easy to promote.  No one
is going to give you any money for not having a distance contraction.

Why would that be?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... transitions of cesium isotope molecules, ... by scientists, do they adjust their results according to the altitude, ... "either frame of reference" as though there were two. ... You scientists say you want the laws of physics to be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
    ... * Calculate the speed of the reflected light front in this frame. ... I do not care whatsoever about what scientists call a light front or ... If you don't like the reactions to your posts in a public forum, ... Oh, now, Robert, when have I ever said that you've ruined my life? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
    ... � �the reflected light front in a frame moving with respect to ... P.D.  Go talk to other scientists. ... As I've pointed out, Robert, the mathematics have little to do with ... Galilean transformation simply does not match experimental reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
    ... � �the reflected light front in a frame moving with respect to ... According to the Lorentz equations, light propagates as an oblate ... P.D.  Go talk to other scientists. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: NOVA on Dover
    ... "science" of evolution have to put up with zealots who threaten people ... Remember, scientists have historically ... I am somewhat embarrassed by some of the creationists' representation, ... And how about all those "transitions of the horse seen in ...
    (talk.origins)